What were the official investigative findings and final disciplinary outcomes in the Jiangyou bullying case?

1. What authorities said they found about the assault

Jiangyou and Mianyang police statements framed the episode as an off‑campus altercation involving three teenage girls in late July in which the 14‑year‑old victim suffered “minor injuries” to her scalp and knees, and that the incident involved a prior conflict between the victim and one of the assailants; that official account was repeatedly cited in public statements and media summaries of the investigation ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Who was apprehended and how ages affected outcomes

Local authorities reported that three alleged perpetrators were identified and apprehended — described in public notices as aged roughly 13, 14 and 15 — and treated under juvenile‑justice and administrative channels rather than adult criminal courts; several outlets repeat that two of the older juveniles were to be sent to “specialised schools for correctional education,” while the youngest, being under the age of automatic juvenile criminal responsibility, saw only a reprimand for her legal guardians ^{[2] [5] [3]}.

3. The specific disciplinary measures announced

The measures publicly disclosed were administrative and educational: police and municipal statements said two juveniles would be transferred to correctional schooling, other participants in the episode received administrative punishments, and local authorities imposed public‑security penalties on people who the police concluded had fabricated or spread false information about the case online — steps that officials presented as the final disciplinary outcomes ^{[3] [4] [6]}.

4. Public reaction and the gap between official outcomes and public expectations

Despite the formal measures, the official findings and penalties were widely perceived as too light; online outrage escalated into rare street protests in Jiangyou demanding “severe” punishment and accountability, with demonstrators explicitly criticizing the leniency of juvenile‑age outcomes and local handling — a reaction that prompted a forceful police response and intensified debate over whether administrative punishments and correctional schooling satisfy public demands for justice ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

5. Alternative readings and limits of the public record

Observers and commentators offered competing interpretations: state and local authorities emphasized a closed juvenile‑justice handling and warned against rumours, while independent commentators and some analysts argued the case illustrated institutional self‑protection and inadequate police responsiveness to repeated bullying; publicly available sources do not show evidence in the record supplied here of subsequent criminal prosecutions or judicial rulings beyond the administrative corrections and reprimands announced by police, and reporting is limited on whether follow‑up social‑service or legal reforms were enacted locally ^{[9] [3] [1]}.

6. Final assessment: what the official record actually prescribes

The official investigative record, as reported by multiple outlets, established a finding of assault with relatively minor documented injuries, identified and detained juvenile suspects, and imposed non‑criminal disciplinary outcomes — correctional school placement for two juveniles, administrative punishments for others, reprimands for guardians of a minor, and penalties for several netizens judged to have fabricated information — while the disparity between these measures and public expectations of accountability sparked protests and further controversy ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.